Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lived experience and the critical work of feminist and queer scholars across disciplines have shown that political hope—which, at face value, signals optimism about the possibility of social transformation—often disappoints due to the concealment of an underlying complicity with the status quo and its structuring violence. In the face of these failures, ought we reject hope altogether and embrace negativity and refusal, as Lee Edelman suggests in No Future? Rejecting the common binary opposition between hope and refusal, this article instead coins and proposes the practice of “hope as refusal.” To employ hope as refusal, I argue, requires rejecting inevitability in all its forms, including the naively hopeful belief that “progress” is inevitable and the complacently hopeless belief that the violence of the present is inevitable. Instead, I draw from queer women of color and Black feminisms to argue for the inseparability of refusing the world of our present and striving for the possibility of other worlds and futures that do not merely perpetuate it. I turn to Saidiya Hartman’s writings, as well as her work as a founding member of the Practicing Refusal Collective, as illuminating examples of projects shaped by hope as refusal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it